Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

The nuclear ultimatum

Follow me through this simple train of logic. Whereas:

There are potentially good wives who are rendered unmarriageable primarily by virtue of consequences of their past decisions.

Women are dynamic creatures whose perspective and attitudes are usually defined, per de Sade, Day, and various others, by their current lover or husband.

It has been observed that single women are frequently willing to mistreat, harm, and otherwise put their children at risk in pursuit of relationships with men they find sufficiently desirable.

Therefore:A man who is interested in pursuing a relationship with an otherwise high potential single mother can test her ability and willingness to become a good wife and mother to his children by requiring her to give up custody of her illegitimate spawn in return for a commitment from him.
Now, I have no doubt that this little thought experiment will put numerous knickers in serious twists. But, if one takes a deep breath and thinks the matter through, it will soon become apparent that a successful ultimatum of this sort actually meets the objectives of the Female Imperative as well as those of the BETA male seeking a high grade wife and mother.

The BETA male achieves his objective of finding a higher-grade woman than he can normally attract without the huge negative of accepting the burden of supporting her bastards. Not only that, but by virtue of such a demand, he becomes much more attractive to her, as there are few things more ruthlessly ALPHA than requiring a woman to choose between her bastard(s) and the man with whom she is seeking a permanent relationship.

In summary, the woman gets a more attractive man than she bargained for, a significant upgrade on the life support front, and she is relieved of the children that were dragging down her prospects. The man gets a more attractive woman than he expected, unencumbered by the elements that reduced her attractiveness to others.

Is it rough on the bastards? To be sure, but seriously, in a world of abortion and no-fault divorce, it's a little disingenuous to claim that the family system gives even the smallest of damns about children. If the legal regime was genuinely set up to defend the long-term interests of the children, divorce would be illegal except for female adultery, abortion would be punished by the execution of the guilty doctors and nurses and the sterilization of the guilty woman, and custody in the event of divorce would go automatically to the father. So, let's not suddenly start pretending that the interests of the children are relevant here.

Besides, in the situation envisioned, the bastards being raised by single women. Let's face it, the odds are already stacked heavily against them and aren't going to get considerably worse by one more strike being added.

So, it's a win for the Female Imperative, a win for the vital keepers of commitment, and a loss for the party that neither society nor the legal system cares about anyhow.

53 comments:

So one would need to find a woman who would fail the Judgement of Solomon, no thank you. Not only that but this same woman would be vindictive enough to drown your own evil spawn some day while you're at work.

So one would need to find a woman who would fail the Judgement of Solomon, no thank you. Not only that but this same woman would be vindictive enough to drown your own evil spawn some day while you're at work.

You are completely missing the point about the dynamic and malleable nature of women. It works both ways. There is the good Christian woman who falls in with the wrong friends, gets unhaaaaappy and frivorces her husband, and the mudsharking slut who runs into the right Alpha and gets her head on straight as a result.

My two cents: This is nothing new - in fact, it was quite common a century ago. It happened to my grandmother. She was 11 when her widowed mother remarried - and the potential step father did just as Vox outlined above. The kids all got the punt, and my grandmother - at the ripe old age of 11 - found herself responsible for 3 younger brothers and sisters. She went to work and raised them. She became an incredibly tough and intelligent woman as a result of all that which was good.

The bad part: she effectively became a working mother back in the late 40's back when respectable women stayed home with their kids. She developed a dominant personality that later clashed with her own husband's. She became a feminist back before the term was even invented. Hers was an unhappy home, and my mother grew up to be the picture of what is wrong with baby boomer women today - a shrieking femc*nt that figures she can treat men like chit - and often gets away with it. Naturally she and I have an uneasy peace between us. I learned a lot from my grandmother about finances, responsibility, and the need to plan and prepare and be independent. In my mother, I saw all the traits of women that I would need to avoid.

Anything you do, Vox, is like throwing pebbles into a pond. The ripples go outward, collide with unseen obstructions and other ripples - and produce new ripples of there own. Your thought experiment has been tried and I personally believe it backfired and actually helped set the stage for the rancid model of feral womanhood today. The bond between mother and child is very, very strong and real - and if you break it - other things get broken too, both in her and the kids.

Giving said husband custody of the child is more acceptable. I was thinking the extreme of giving up custody through adoption. I know one woman who left her children a few states behind with her ex and started a new life with a new guy and gave birth to another child. As a man I was little judgmental of her (shameful of me? yeah probably, but the thought of my child not being where I can see to his/her well-being everyday would drive me crazy). I've jokingly said if I was in the wild I would rather eat another creature's young than raise the little bastards as my own.

Shit, thinking this through I actually agree with your thought experiment.

To have a mother kick out her children simply because I want to stick my dick into her, that's not Alpha in my book, that's plain and simple psychopathic. A male beyond their teens who fails to understand the effect of their actions on society is not a man, he is far greater a problem to society at large than any bastard - perhaps he's a grown up bastard who didn't mature emotionally for lack of guidance or appropriate role model. The mark of a _MAN_ is to act responsibly, taking more factors in consideration than their own immediate benefit, to do otherwise is to give the feminists (who act in exactly that way incidentally) right. Compounding an existing problem is not a solution as I see it and as I understand what you are proposing in the article.

There are enough attractive and wive-able women out there who you can bang without screwing her life even more.

I get the point, would agree that while in some cases transferring the kids from the mother to the father would be even worse for the kids, for them to stay with their single mom is basically never good for them. But it's kind of hard to think of any hypothetical where getting into a relationship with a single mom who isn't a widow would be a good idea. And of those cases, I lean much more towards a reformed slut than a reformed frivorcer, which is going to be the case where it would be wrong for the mom to give her kids to their dad. My thinking is that if a frivorcer is truly reformed, she's trying to reconcile with her husband, has already given him the kids, and is off the market for other men altogether.

I see this as almost a moral imperative. A lot of churches has been saying that men should "Man Up" and marry those slutty, I mean, single women so their children have fathers. What this does is it pushes custody back to the father, probably takes away his child support obligations, while keeping the children from being leverage in family courts.

Hmm I can see here though that it makes for even LESS consequence on women's actions.

The ability to do whatever they want, fuck around, end up with kids, OR breakdown their marriages yet then be provided with an easy way out, where all the consequences of their past decisions are passed onto someone else? I'm sure they'd LOVE that.

Women already think they can (and deserve to) just "wipe clean and start afresh" whenever they don't like how something's going. They get a lot of recompense for that now (financially and otherwise), but at least their tribe of kids are a bit more of a lasting reminder and consequence to their actions that they can't just throw away as easy and pretend their past never happened, and gives a warning for other blokes to stay away.

In cases where it would REALLY be better for the kid, and it's what the biological father wants then sure. But otherwise I think it would be a diabolical idea to take away even more responsibility from them, allowing them to do absolutely whatever they bloody want with no consequences, and the ability to start again afresh and seek something "better" each time.

Try to keep in mind that the alternative is not the man marrying the single mother and legitimizing the bastards. If a man wants to do that, fine. We're considering the more common situation where the man is interested in the woman, but views her bastards as deal-breakers.

I personally know of several situations where there may well have been marriages if there were not children in the picture.

We're considering the more common situation where the man is interested in the woman, but views her bastards as deal-breakers.

Do you really think the subgroup of men that would accept a woman who has procreated, but no longer has the child, as opposed to never procreating at all is large enough to put a dent in single motherhood?

Yes, let's apply a sparse and simple logic to human affairs, what could possibly go wrong!?

Also, did you just casually put yourself in the company of de Sade? Can't wait to see who'll be next lol!

Let's continue this inspired train of thought: first, it's safe to assume that the prospective husband is beta (from game: alphas have better options, alphas don't get hung up on one woman, alphas don't get married, etc.).

If the man is beta, we know from game that women only want him for his provider status, not because she loves him.

Therefore the woman is jettisoning the children in order to snag a good provider. In other words, she willingly dumps her own children for a chance at a higher standard of living for herself.

A man who is interested in pursuing a relationship with an otherwise high potential single mother can test her ability and willingness to become a good wife and mother to his children by requiring her to give up custody of her illegitimate spawn in return for a commitment from him.

See, this confuses me, as it seems to argue that one can judge a woman's "ability and willingness to become a good wife and mother" by her willingness to jettison her previous children for what makes her haaaaaaaaaaaaappy right now. QED of what, exactly? I actually thought this was meant as a sort of "Solomon's test" question, whereby if she caved, it was significant of moral weakness, and therefore a sign she was not really worthy.

Disregarding the previous children entirely, as you have, it still seems wanting of real evidence that a woman would be capable of being faithful to man and children over the long term, when she has proven infidelity to her previous lover, and compounded it with merciless abandonment of her children.

Now, I am completely on board with you as you mention a woman's malleability of thought when a sufficiently estimable man chooses to direct it. Perhaps in some cases this act will be necessary for proper direction - clearing away of distractions, so to speak. Nevertheless, this does not indicate that the woman is good material; it simply puts the onus on the man to make good on his bet that he can make a worthwhile woman out of a female willing to sacrifice her children for the urgings of her libido/hypergamy/etc.

Moreover, as someone upthread pointed out, it creates a perverse incentive. In fact, it makes women that much more likely to push for custody, if they have the expectation that not only will they get child support in the interim, but then, once they find a new man, they can just pawn the children off and have no further consequences for their actions.

I would posit that while this may work in a few outlying cases, it sets a bad precedent. What must instead change is that children, whether produced by sluttery or frivorce, should be considered a sobering responsibility. Women must determine that they have a responsibility to their children and their father before all else. If they decide to date, then it is right that the children should come first, although the woman should make allowances and arrangements to set aside time for the new man. Women in such a situation ought to express humility and gratitude for a man willing to make the concession of dating a woman with bastards, and for his understanding of their (balanced) priority in care. (i.e. a sick child is a good reason to call off a date, but every attempt should be made to clear time in the kids' schedule for uninterrupted date time)

Instead, we find women going to extremes, either placing no premium on their children's well-being, and parading men through their lives with nary a consideration, or we see women self-righteously proclaiming "You get me, you get my kids, and you better me man enough!" as if they are a great prize, and men should chase after them despite the "full package" including another man's kids.

Nice. People seem a little confused about the issue here, though. Vox isn't talking about making her sell the kids for scientific experiments; she'd be turning custody over to their father, with whom they'd probably be better off anyway. And simply by dint of being a single mother she's already put a big question mark on her mothering ability, so there's not that much damage to be done there. In many cases, giving custody to the father would be the first really positive act of mothering she's done in a long time, as well as a sign that she has some passing acquaintance with reality and her limitations.

I'm sure some mothers really do want their children and fight to keep them in a divorce for that reason. But I think an awful lot of them fight for custody because A) that's what women do, and a woman who admits she can do without her kids is seen as a monster; and B) no kids means no child support and no sympathy from everyone around her. Most of the single moms I've known, even if they really were trying to be good mothers, weren't all that interested in their kids, no matter how often they claimed "my kids are my life."

My own observation has been that that women who would put boyfriends before their kids are also women who wouldn't mind cheating on a husband either. They have a problem with loyalty and perspective. The title boyfriend has more allure to most women, especially disloyal women, than do the titles of child or husband.

Nice. People seem a little confused about the issue here, though. Vox isn't talking about making her sell the kids for scientific experiments; she'd be turning custody over to their father, with whom they'd probably be better off anyway.

In most cases, this would be the ideal situation, yes. However, Vox very clearly indicates that, with regards to this exact argument, the outcome of the children is entirely immaterial:

"Is it rough on the bastards? To be sure, but seriously, in a world of abortion and no-fault divorce, it's a little disingenuous to claim that the family system gives even the smallest of damns about children."

and

"So, it's a win for the Female Imperative, a win for the vital keepers of commitment, and a loss for the party [children] that neither society nor the legal system cares about anyhow. "

Now, I think Vox is approaching this as a cold, hard realist dealing with the actual system and not what the system purports to be. However, just because the system is bad doesn't mean we should seek to be as bad. The entire argument could be changed by merely stipulating that the children are to go to the biological father (assuming he is willing and desirous) or at least to a responsible third party (the woman's or biological father's parents, perhaps). This is basically what Cail has assumed (correct me if I mischaracterize), and would probably be the typical case.

This is a fairly minor detail to add, yet there is a big difference between a woman who throws her children out to who/whatever to follow her tingles, and a woman who returns their children to their rightful father, or otherwise capable environment with the intention of seeing that they are properly cared for, herself acting under the moral guidance of the new man. And this should be a major factor in the judgement of a woman's character, sofar as wifing and parenting are concerned.

It depends a lot on how you would frame it. Is it, "Get rid of your kids so you'll have more time for blowing me"? Or, "If you want to show me you're really serious about this relationship, and that you're committed to doing the right thing for our kids, I want you to turn custody over to your ex. Take some time and think about it."

(Of course, I'm assuming that, as in most cases, there is a father who would/could take custody. If there's not someone who wants custody, I don't suppose the law would let her give them up anyway.)

Peoplegrowing, yes, that was my assumption. In most cases, there is a father in the picture somewhere, who quite likely would be interested in taking the children if it wiped out his child support/alimony (as goes without saying, it should). If the dad is dead, imprisoned, or incapable, there are probably grandparents or an aunt and uncle or a couple at church who couldn't conceive, or someone who would give the kids a home with a father. People wait on adoption lists for years these days, so finding a good home for normal kids is not a big problem. We're not talking about her leaving them on the doorstep of a monastery here.

Thing is, I've seen plenty of single/divorced women drop their kids with whatever pothead babysitter they could find, for a night or a weekend or more, when given the chance to spend some quality time with their legs wrapped around an alpha. They already do that, so judge accordingly. Vox's challenge goes deeper, saying to her: You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can keep those kids and the child support and the social status they give you, or you can start over with me, but you can't juggle both and pretend you're giving either of us your all.

No, I think it is a win-win-win, depending on if the child can be adopted out. Young enough and they would be welcomed in many homes, even being partially barbaric through poor upbringing. They beat even simple black babies that are being snapped up since little else is out there but who are problematic from go. The kid will win, if he can get adopted. And given the state of adoption, he has a great chance at that. For females though? It... won't be as good. The chance of incest like behavior with non-blood females in a household is... well... it is what it is. Still, she would have been at risk with her mother, especially if her mother was going through several men while trying to find a keeper. So, it would at least be more stable incest? Something like that.

Peoplegrowing, yes, that was my assumption. In most cases, there is a father in the picture somewhere, who quite likely would be interested in taking the children if it wiped out his child support/alimony (as goes without saying, it should).

Meh it depends. For an older, responsible dad who just wants to spend time with his kids? Absolutely.

But in most circumstances especially with younger parents, the lass just wants to slut about. Having the option to easily jettison the kids away every.time onto the bloke, while she then moves on to her next immediate slut conquest, would be an absolute godsend for them. I guess it may be better for the kids but with that entire responsibility / consequence being removed, I can't see it having a good effect on women and their attitude, which is already bad enough due to no lasting consequences.

Sure they'd not get be able to get child support but, they'd still end up getting SOMETHING from the state. With a lot more free time and the ability to throw the entire consequence of their one-nighter's onto the blokes well, nothing would be stopping them being even worse.

I noted that you said the only acceptable cause for divorce would be female adultery. I understand the manosphere's views on the different impact of female adultery versus male adultery. Don't you think that there's some equivalent male offense - say abandonment?

An interesting thought experiment Vox. I am guessing the critical part and the caveat that informs it is ...

"Is it rough on the bastards? To be sure, but seriously, in a world of abortion and no-fault divorce, it's a little disingenuous to claim that the family system gives even the smallest of damns about children. If the legal regime was genuinely set up to defend the long-term interests of the children, divorce would be illegal except for female adultery, abortion would be punished by the execution of the guilty doctors and nurses and the sterilization of the guilty woman, and custody in the event of divorce would go automatically to the father. So, let's not suddenly start pretending that the interests of the children are relevant here."

Given no-fault divorce and abortion it is hard to fault the logic of your position.

I'd agree with your suggestion for how to build a system that takes seriously the situation the child finds them self in.

The only problem I see with your thought experiment, because I think you are trying to show that such a thing would be a bad thing, but in light of the current circumstances it is certainly logical, is that you run the risk of the intended audience concluding this is the way to go rather than the way you probably want them to conclude, which i'm guessing is, therefore we need a system that really gives two shits about the kids involved.

I remember Peter Kreeft describing a talk he gave on why if you support abortion then logically you should support infanticide. The conclusion he wanted people to draw was "therefore abortion is wrong", but some feminists approached him afterward and said, "You are right, you've convinced us to support infanticide".

we find women going to extremes, either placing no premium on their children's well-being, and parading men through their lives with nary a consideration, or we see women self-righteously proclaiming "You get me, you get my kids, and you better be man enough!"

We also see some who put their kids first, without being self-righteous about it. "You get me, you get my kids. If that doesn't interest you, you don't interest me." I married one like that; we're coming up on 22 years.

as if they are a great prize, and men should chase after them despite the "full package" including another man's kids. The kids can add value to the package if you let them. (Some won't, but you can find out if they're going to be a pain rather than a joy while dating their mom.) And if the mom is a prize, you're the winner if the package is too much for the competition.

Duh, she's ALREADY a bad risk as a wife. By doing this she displays that she's a slightly less risky wife prospect.

Actually, the argument already assumed she was risky because of her background, but also made a foundational assumption that the man in question had determined she COULD be wife material, given proper molding, and given that the kids were out of the picture.

Doing this, depending on the frame (dumping kids off vs. returning them to a rightful father or putting them in an otherwise safe, loving, STABLE home) could very well prove she's a greater risk than originally thought. Not necessarily in the immediate (since no more kids to support) but in the moderate to long term - if she was willing to give up her kid's for you, what happens to your kids when she gets sick of you and meets the next guy?

As with the aphorism with cheating and gossiping, if they'll do it WITH you, then they'll do it TO you. Cail and I established that their MAY be a frame in which this "solution" would be workable and beneficial, but even that puts a high risk gamble on the man that he be successful in his "moldings". Otherwise, it just demonstrates a greater deprivation of character.

"As with the aphorism with cheating and gossiping, if they'll do it WITH you, then they'll do it TO you"

Agreed.

This proposal requires a woman who is willing to sacrifice her kin - the children she bore - in order to please a man who is willing to require her to sacrifice them. And puts them in a position to breed with each other. And when a man that selfish displeases a woman that selfish? There's nothing preventing her from going Medea on him and any children they've had together.

(It sounds like an excellent way to spawn a super-villain, I will admit.)

I'm having trouble deciding whether this proposal is something of which the feminists would heartily approve, or whether it would confirm their animus against men. Perhaps both, since intellectual consistency isn't a high priority for most of them.

Addendum: Quite frankly it sounds like a better system for screening out potential spouses. No sensible woman would want a man who would tell her to give up her child for no better reason than the child exists, and no sensible man should want a woman who shows that little dedication and mothering-instinct.

Methinks too many commenters here are still stuck in the feminist blue-pill propaganda mind-set that the mother (the one who frivorced her husband OR didn't bother getting a ring on it to begin with) is somehow a better parent than the father of that same child.

And here we have why the custody courts are so blatantly biased. 85% of women like it that way (or more), and at least 20% of men - WHO ARE READING ALPHAGAME - agree with this crap. Probably more like 50% of all men outside of manosphere readers agree with this evil mindset.

Any man who can demand children be orphaned well deserves a woman willing to orphan her children.

Both would well deserve whatever comes of hordes of children discovering that they are unloved and unwanted, and deciding that the prior generation deserves no more mercy nor charity than they were willing to give. It will make the revolution that much easier.

1. If I were not a Christian, then this would work great. A woman willing to give up throw away children, for whatever reason, does not have "her head on straight." And aint getting any of my children

2. If we are going to assume the woman "got her head on straight" simply from meeting the "proper" alpha and not from true Christian conversion, then the chances of it working would fall right in line with her previous relationship.

1. If I were not a Christian, then this would work great. A woman willing to give up throw away children, for whatever reason, does not have "her head on straight." And aint getting any of my children

2. If we are going to assume the woman "got her head on straight" simply from meeting the "proper" alpha and not from true Christian conversion, then the chances of it working would fall right in line with her previous relationship.

Late as always: back in the school of law, the seeds of Vox's kind of thinking were set in my mind concerning family law, divorce, etc. Later, when I really thought about it, all of society would be much better served if men were granted exclusive and forced custody. This would solve a lot of issues (not that law can solve society's ills, a change from within the person is needed: Jesus) which concern hypergamy, bastards, etc. A certain racial segment of our society would no longer have 40 bastards to his name, but would be riding around in this to haul his progeny: http://www.automopedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/pimpedbus.jpg

Statistically, is there any worse environment in which a child can be raised than by a single mother? Those who get pregnant with bastards have already demonstrated that the well-being of those children is not a particularly important consideration for her. Why should I care more about their lives than she does? If the normal state of affairs was that women who bear bastard children shouldn't expect to ever marry, especially to marry men who have never married and have no children, and that fathers always get the children in divorce, perhaps sluts and frivorce(at least in the church) would become nearly non-existent. We wouldn't have to be concerned about who is going to marry these women because there would be so few of them. Even if it resulted in no changed behavior by women (which I doubt) at least they would get to experience the consequences of their actions instead of the current model, which is to idolize them. They should lose their sense of entitlement that other men should feel obligated and even honored to raise their bastard spawn.

"Why do you keep describing turning kids over to their father or to a stable two-parent home as "sacrificing"?"

"Why do you keep assuming that the word "bastard" describes a child whose father is willing to acknowledge him?"

Because that method of relinquishing custody was not specified in the original argument.

It was only specified that the woman would relinquish custody, not the means by which she should do so, thus leaving the options for relinquishing custody open to everything from the best case (adoption into a stable home) to the worst case (strangling the kids to death and dumping the bodies in a field) and everything in between (like the case of simple abandonment up-thread).

The latter two options (murder or abandonment) are the most likely courses of action for a woman of the level of selfishness described in the original post. (Adoption takes too long.)

Because that method of relinquishing custody was not specified in the original argument.

Indeed. In fact, and I quote:

"...by requiring her to give up custody of her illegitimate spawn in return for a commitment from him."

Some are so accustomed to viewing the man as moral but wronged and the woman as immoral and in the wrong that they cannot even trouble themselves to contemplate any other situation, one wherein a man has avoided his responsibilities. They must assume that all fathers would be overjoyed to dwell with their "crotch fruit"--I note that derogatory terms for children are typically coined by your men, by the bye--and so, therefore, it is only due to hateful, cruel, avaricious women that they are denied this much sought-after blessing.

Solipsism may oft appear among women, but it is even more comical when practised by men.